Z v Z (Foreign Divorce: Financial Provision)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 1992 |
| Date | 1992 |
| Year | 1992 |
| Court | Family Division |
EWBANK, J
Financial provision – foreign divorce – spouses Jordanians – marriage and divorce taking place in Bahrain – matrimonial homes in Bahrain and England – wife entitled to assets of £850,000 – wife seeking to leave to apply for financial relief in England – whether leave would be granted.
Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 enables a court in England to grant financial relief where a marriage has been dissolved in foreign proceedings. By s 13 an application under Part III of the 1984 Act may only be made with the leave of the court and the court shall not grant leave unless it considers there is substantial ground for making the application. By s 15 the court has jurisdiction if, at the date of the application, either of the parties to the marriage was (a) domiciled in England; or (b) had been resident here for the previous year; or (c) had a beneficial interest in a dwelling-house here which had, at some time during the marriage, been a matrimonial home of the parties. By s 16 the court is required to consider whether England and Wales is an appropriate venue and, in particular, to have regard to the parties' connexion with this country and with any other country; and to any financial benefits the applicant had received or was likely to receive as a result of the foreign divorce. By s 18 the court is required to have regard to all the circumstances and, in particular, the matters set out in s 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.
The parties were both Jordanian nationals and they were Moslems. They were married in Bahrain in 1974. There were no children of the marriage. They owned properties in Bahrain and France and in 1980 bought two flats in London. There was a separation in 1985 and, under a separation agreement, it was stated that the wife had the right to half of the properties in Bahrain, France and England. The parties subsequently resumed cohabitation. On 7 November 1990 the husband divorced the wife by Talaq in Bahrain. The husband regarded the separation agreement of 1985 as remaining a binding agreement so far as the wife's rights in the properties were concerned. On 26 November 1990 the wife filed an application for financial relief under Part III of the 1984 Act. In January 1992 the wife filed a second application under Part III of the 1984 Act.
Held – On the facts, the court had jurisdiction under s 15 of the 1984 Act on the grounds of the wife's residence and the existence of a matrimonial home in England. The financial circumstances of the parties, which the court was required to consider under s 18, showed that the husband was a relatively rich man and that the wife had capital assets totalling £850,000. The burden of showing, pursuant to s 16, that it was appropriate to make an order under the Act was on the person who sought the order. The purpose of the Act was to remit hardships
which had been experienced in the past of a failure by a foreign jurisdiction to afford appropriate financial relief: see Holmes v Holmes [1990] FCR 157. A relevant question in the present case was whether there was a hardship to the wife which ought to be remitted. By s 16 the court should also have regard to the connexion of the parties to England. They unquestionably had a connexion with this country, but their connexion with Bahrain was clearly stronger. Having regard to all the circumstances, the wife had not satisfied the court, as required by s 15, that there was substantial ground for making an application. Therefore, she would not be granted leave to bring an application under Part III of the 1984 Act.
Romie Tager for the wife.
Nicholas Wilson, QC and Nicholas Mostyn for the husband.
MR JUSTICE EWBANK.I have before me an application by the wife against her ex-husband, for financial relief, after an overseas divorce under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984.
The husband, who is now 64, was born in Nazareth and the wife, who is 53, was born in Haifa. They are both Jordanian nationals and they are both Moslem. The husband came to London University in 1946 and studied there until 1949 and was called to the Bar by Lincoln's Inn in 1950, so that he is an English barrister.
The husband married his first wife in 1953 and had four sons by her who have grown up. The wife was brought up in Syria. She was educated at an Italian convent school in Syria and later went to a Swiss finishing school. She was also married previously. She married her first husband in 1959 in Egypt and has two sons by him.
Between 1965 and 1967, the husband was a minister in the government of Jordan, and in 1971, he started practising law in Bahrain. He continues to do so. In 1973, the wife was divorced from her first husband by Talaq. She then went to live in Alexandria in her parents' home, which had been left to her. On 6 May 1974, the husband and wife were married in Bahrain. This marriage is recorded in the Sharia court and provided for deferred dower in the event of divorce. The husband and wife have no children. The husband at that time was not divorced from his first wife, so the second marriage, was polygamous. The husband divorced his second wife in 1984.
In 1974, the husband and wife bought a flat in joint names in France at a cost of approximately £40,000. From the time of the marriage until 1979, they lived in a house in Bahrain, and in 1979, having built another house, they moved into that house which became their matrimonial home. In 1980, they bought two flats in London. Both flats were bought in the name of Jersey companies. The beneficial ownership of the flats is in the husband and wife equally and jointly. The wife said she spent some three years renovating the flats and the contents of the flats are insured for approximately £320,000. The up-to-date value of one of the flats is £900,000 and of the other flat, £200,000.
In 1982, the wife started a business in Bahrain and she had an antique gallery in a hotel in Bahrain. In 1985, the husband says that the wife committed adultery. The wife says it was malicious gossip and she did not commit adultery. It led to unhappiness in the marriage and there was a proposed separation. An agreement was signed by the husband and wife. The wife...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Met v Hat
...by having heard the very same words fall from the mouth of Ewbank J when he awarded maintenance pending suit in the well-known case of Z v. Z [1992] 2 FLR 291— that, where the jurisdiction to pronounce a decree is in dispute, the court should act very cautiously indeed. The court is entitle......
-
Hewitson v Hewitson
...necessary to consider beyond s16 since the application was doomed to failure on the issue of jurisdiction. Ewbank J in Z v Z (Financial Provision: Overseas Divorce) [1992] 2 FLR 291 also cast an eye on the matters which would arise under s18 if the application for leave were granted. I enti......
-
Tj v Xgm
...to section 29AC of Part IIA. 29. The applicant bears the burden of meeting the threshold: Z v Z (foreign divorce: financial provision) [1992] 2 FCR 152. In discharging the burden, the applicant must present before the court all the relevant facts in support. And the court will consider all ......
-
Cl v Zrc
...to section 29AC of Part IIA. 29. The applicant bears the burden of meeting the threshold: Z vZ (foreign divorce: financial provision) [1992] 2 FCR 152. In discharging the burden, the applicant must present before the court all the relevant facts in support. And the court will consider all t......